Author
Topic: Vicar of... (Read 13842 times)

I've asked this on a Catholic forum before. The reply I got was basically that Antioch had fallen into heresy, and even over-run by Islamic conquest. I suppose when one has fallen into heresy as multiple Eastern Patriarchs have been guilty of, in the Catholic mind.. you can just give it up. At least, that's the way I understood it..

@Everyone Else,

I personally feel that many of our differences are due to a language barrier. St. Maximos the Confessor spoke Latin and Greek fluently and saw through some of the pointless disagreements we have, especially in regards to the Christology of the filioque. When the western and eastern half of the Roman empire split, it was inevitable that we would become something ontologically different altogether. The question in many of our differences, and in regards to Augustinian influence... is one of emphasis in my mind.

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

I don't believe that any of the clergy of Rome, or the pope have Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, only From St. Paul,, why would St. Peter sow in someone else's vineyard,, when he was sent to the Jews to preach and convert.....Like a Good Apostle he may of visited St. Paul, but setting up bishops in another man's vineyard i doubt it......

Why don't we hear from rome about successors of St. Paul ,and Where are the Bishops he established ,where did they go ....Rome seems to be silent on that.....

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)

If you are talking about my comment, that wasn't what I was saying. I said that all the clergy represent Christ. I think the Eastern Orthodox would agree with us as far as that goes since each bishop (and to a lesser degree, each priest) is responsible for leading their flocks. They are called to follow Christ in shepherding. The Pope's title reflects the fact that his flock, in addition to being those who belong to the diocese of Rome, is also the entire Church. This doesn't mean he is above Christ or even equal to Christ. We believe he is the highest human authority within the Church just as St. Peter was because he was appointed by Christ to have this role.

I see you neglected to view the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Vicar. I have quoted the very pertinent section below:

Quote

In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The office of vicar was in use among the ancient Romans, that being the title of officials subordinate to the praetorian prefects.

Note the uses of the words subordinate and representative. The word vicarius may have its origin in the word vice ("instead of") but its historical usage, both before and after the Christian co-option of the word, clearly indicates that its meaning is more of a "subordinate representative".

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

God should have sent St. Peter to South Africa or Zimbabwe or somewhere, just to mess with everyone. I wonder how history would have been different had that happened...

That definitely would have been loads of fun.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I guess the thing is no matter how one twists and contorts what is being said "Vicar of Christ" literally means - "In place of Christ or Instead of Christ".

If one has to give a long paragraph excuse for this to twist what is being said, I would warn that the Father of all lies IS indeed the father of all lies.Truth usually manifests itself in simplicity.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Regarless of what you think the word literally means, that is not what we mean by the term so get over it.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.

Plus, St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ as appointed by Christ, so to say "Vicar of Peter" is essentially the same as saying "Vicar of Christ." I suppose some would split hairs and say that that would be "Vicar of the Vicar of Christ," but that is getting a bit wordy and means the same thing. I am sure that yeshuaisiam is going to come back and continue harping on the literal meaning and origin of the word "vicar" even though it is irrelevant since we do not use the word when referencing the Pope in the way he thinks/alleges we do.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.

Plus, St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ as appointed by Christ, so to say "Vicar of Peter" is essentially the same as saying "Vicar of Christ." I suppose some would split hairs and say that that would be "Vicar of the Vicar of Christ," but that is getting a bit wordy and means the same thing. I am sure that yeshuaisiam is going to come back and continue harping on the literal meaning and origin of the word "vicar" even though it is irrelevant since we do not use the word when referencing the Pope in the way he thinks/alleges we do.

Unfortunately, some folks have made up their minds and don't want to be bothered by the facts.

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think....

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think....

Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think....

Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

It would appear logical that upon the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire the devolvement of some of the former Imperial prerogatives and titles upon the Pope of Rome, who did after all possess varying degrees of secular, temporal power during the intervening period from about the end of the fifth century through the middle of the 19th century, might have included the transition frorm the prior practice of referring to the Pope as the 'Vicar of Peter' to that of the 'Vicar of Christ.' After all, that accretion of temporal authority to the Bishop of Rome had a great deal to do with the gradually widening rift between eastern and western Christianity.

We also have to keep in mind that in the initial period of Christianity, beginning with the Apostolic era and continuing through the early post western imperial era, the imminent return of Christ was anticipated and it would be logical for there to be a need felt for one to act as Vicar of an apostle or of Christ Himself.

Sorry, I just can't keep those damnable facts from coloring my opinions.

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think....

Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

The West has pretty much had this view of Kings and Emperors holding Christ's temporal authority as well, but only in a political sense and not in an ecclesial sense.

Of course sometimes Emperors and Kings think that they do have that ecclesial power and then you get cæsaropapism, Henry the VIII, and lots of other fun stuff.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC††NI KA†

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.

So let me get this straight: St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome? I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC††NI KA†

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.

So let me get this straight: St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome? I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that St. Peter ranked first out of all the bishops, up until his death.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC††NI KA†

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.

So let me get this straight: St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome? I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:

Oh come on. After the death of the apostles Rome immediately became the prime See and Jerusalem was . . . not a Patriarchal See? Only Alexandria and Antioch. Sorry Constantinople. You are not even close to being an Apostolic See.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC††NI KA†

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.

So let me get this straight: St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome? I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:

Oh come on. After the death of the apostles Rome immediately became the prime See and Jerusalem was . . . not a Patriarchal See? Only Alexandria and Antioch. Sorry Constantinople. You are not even close to being an Apostolic See.

Actually that is not accurate. The Christian centre there was created by the preaching of the brother of Saint Peter, Saint Andrew.

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think....

Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

The West has pretty much had this view of Kings and Emperors holding Christ's temporal authority as well, but only in a political sense and not in an ecclesial sense.

Of course sometimes Emperors and Kings think that they do have that ecclesial power and then you get cæsaropapism, Henry the VIII, and lots of other fun stuff.

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Note that way that her duties as a sovereign are intertwined with her religious duties as a Christian monarch.

Fr. Hristos Voskrese....

I read the coronation service ,It is really is nice and as you say it could be Orthodox , other than the creed ,everything was was good.... How different would this Coronation service be from Roman Catholic one , or will they be pertty much the same ,or was this the original catholic coronation used when england was catholic.....

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God. No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

I think that anybody who thinks about it for a moment will realise at once that these are specifics which are natural and appropriate to the United Kingdom. One can easily substitute something for the Roman Catholic Church if it were a ceremony for the King of Spain, or something Orthodox for Greece if it were a King of Greece.

By the way, do their Catholic Majesties of Spain and Belgium undertake to protect the Catholic religion during their coronation?

Conservative Roman Catholics seem to feel close to the Orthodox Church in ways that they do not necessarily feel close to Protestants. They sympathetically recognize that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have much in common with respect to structure (bishops, dioceses, etc.), piety (devotion to the Mother of God, monasticism, etc.), morality (opposition to abortion, etc.), authority (Tradition, Councils, etc.) and myriad other particulars. Conservative Roman Catholics also read good Orthodox writers like Thomas Hopko, Stanley Harakas, Anthony Ugolnik and so forth, and they usually like what they find there. So they wonder why the two groups don’t just get together and put better than three-quarters of all Christians under one (papal, naturally) roof, perhaps thereby causing Protestantism at last to see the light, get with the program and come aboard.

Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

More realistic than most men, Hutchens expressed doubts that this is likely to happen except in an apocalyptic setting, including apocalyptic-scale martyrdom. Some of us present, however, were deeply impressed by, nor will ever forget, the fervent sentiments of Christian charity proclaimed by Neuhaus and Hutchens. We wanted to sit down right there and then, send for the pope, the Eastern Patriarchs, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the appropriate Protestant leaders, instruct them to knock off the foot-dragging, fill out the necessary forms, share the Eucharist, exchange the Kiss of Peace, and thus resolutely make schism a thing of the past. Our hearts truly wept with the longing to do it.

"Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.